
iambiguous wrote:
One can easily imagine this "joker" who either can't or won't do anything against the rich and powerful fuckers that ream him up the ass along with all the rest of us, in his avatar persona, glowering at those here he can turn into scapegoats easily enough with his "world of words" harangues.
Oh, and just for the record [sigh] "even in my own words" I note time and again that in regard to "I" at the existential juncture of identiyt, value judgments and political economy, my own arguments here are no less existential contraptions rooted in dasein than his are.
I'm just less inclined to be that fulminating and fanatical Stooge/Kid he is. You know, in a philosophy forum.
Indeed, why the fuck is he even here when there are countless political forums out there he can do his "Joker thing" in with so many, many more there to "get the message". Or is he a "Joker" in all of those too?
No, seriously.
Zero_Sum wrote:Of course Peter likes Biggie, naturally.![]()
phoneutria wrote:a creepy senile idiot
Peter Kropotkin wrote:Zero_Sum wrote:Of course Peter likes Biggie, naturally.![]()
K: I hold that IAM is the best philosopher on this site...
bar none...... and you aren't even one of the top 100 best
philosophers on this site....and so, I admire him......
for trying to achieve that which you are so afraid to attempt....
a reevaluation of values... what does Zero actually believe and,
most importantly, why? why those values? and what do those values
me for Zero? what does it mean to be human? Zero has no idea
and that is the problem... Zero has all the depth of a sheet of
paper.... look deeper... challenge yourself into taking a deeper
look at yourself... what beliefs are actually your beliefs and
what beliefs are beliefs that have been indoctrinated into you?
Kropotkin
Zero_Brains wrote:
I'm here because you and your pals have virtually censored or banned every other internet platform out there with your neo-liberal Marxist global-homo bullshit. I hope that explains that.
Zero_Brains wrote: I'll do something eventually, don't you worry about that, but as the old saying goes, there's a time and a season for everything. I'm just waiting for the right moment to strike back, we're not there yet.
Zero_Brains wrote: You'll know when I'll be doing my own thing once we reach food riots everywhere, 100 million homeless in the streets, and 75% national unemployment.I take comfort that you and your kind will be helpless when all of that eventually transpires.
Just out of curiosity, when was the first decade that you predicted this?
Joker wrote: Biggie, you shaking your ass on a street corner waving a sign calling it political activism isn't even on my level.
Just out of curiosity, when was the first decade that you predicted this?
Joker wrote: I was off by about ten years, it happens, it's called miscalculation. I'll own up to that.
Joker wrote: Nonetheless, it's clear you and your kind don't pay attention whatsoever to current events unless it's a paid propagandist spoon feeding it to you.
Zero_Sum wrote:Peter Kropotkin wrote:Zero_Sum wrote:Of course Peter likes Biggie, naturally.![]()
K: I hold that IAM is the best philosopher on this site...
bar none...... and you aren't even one of the top 100 best
philosophers on this site....and so, I admire him......
for trying to achieve that which you are so afraid to attempt....
a reevaluation of values... what does Zero actually believe and,
most importantly, why? why those values? and what do those values
me for Zero? what does it mean to be human? Zero has no idea
and that is the problem... Zero has all the depth of a sheet of
paper.... look deeper... challenge yourself into taking a deeper
look at yourself... what beliefs are actually your beliefs and
what beliefs are beliefs that have been indoctrinated into you?
Kropotkin
I believe in chaos and I also believe natural chaotic forces will destroy the abomination that is modern western civilization or society, I hope this clarifies things for you and Biggie. I feel I've been thoroughly consistent on this position for a great deal of many years now [decades] where it should be pretty obvious to all by now one would think.
Joker wrote:I can't wait to see what's going to happen in the next four to six years, you people are going to be utterly destroyed or annihilated and I will be out here enjoying myself in every sort of way imaginable.
He has done this. A number of times. That was part of the funny thing about your other thread, where you said a bunch of things the kids never do. When in fact a number of the people you call kids have done those things.Peter Kropotkin wrote:if you oppose this, then offer us an alternative to this.....
the problem as I see it, is that you don't offer us any alternative
Peter Kropotkin wrote:the real reason that IAM is the best philosopher here is because he is
staying true, being committed to solving his problems...
he doesn't go off message and derail a thread... his concern is
strictly about what concerns him... and frankly, I admire him
for his patience and persistence to keep up the good fight to
address his concerns....now some of you kids accuse him of derailing
a thread, whereas I don't see that at all..... he is keeping on message with
the concerns he is engaged with..
You are comparing him to philosophers who produced, in any given decade complicated texts where the first pages did not resemble latter pages. No one here remotely lives up to the kind of work the people you mention did. No one. Iambs posts and patterns are amongst some of the most repetitive posting patterns I have ever seen. I do agree with you. I think, given his desire to resolve certain issues, it is a sign of committment that he has focused so long on those issues. But much of it involves cut and paste posts and repeating the same insults, assumptions, arguments. None of those guys did anything like that.IAM has his set of problems and he is seeking a solution/solutions for
those set of problems... no different then Hume or Kant or Heidegger.....
and with a focus on his philosophical problems that we should congratulate
him for... not knock him....
I would in fact suggest that he is mocked and derided on this board
because of his dedication and his commitment to his issues....
'small objectivist problems?????????' It's phrases like that that continuously lead me to belief you have no idea what his philosophical positions are or even what objectivist means in his use of the term.and frankly, the kids just aren't smart enough to see that IAM
problems aren't just small, objectivist problems but universal
and in dire need of a solution problems....
The problem he has with his divided mind as you call it, or fractured and fragmented as he calls it is not created by modernity, though more people will be aware of it due to modern paradigms and the amount of cross-cultural knowledge we have, etc. But these do not cause the problem, they make it easier to see the problem. The problem was actually there in Rome, for example, where you had several cultures mixing, various belief systems available, various epistemologies available, and a variety of moral positions available to be believed in by many people. So, if it was there in Rome it was there in London in the 1700s, and to the French speaking Russians in the 1800s and in Constantinople going back a few thousand years, in many parts of every continent going back thousands of years. But again these places and mileaus were not the cause of the problem, the problem is part of being human or sentient.I would suggest that his "divided" Mind/ soul are a modern
and universal problem created by the various and unique
issues brought about by Modernity...I would suggest that what he
describes about himself is just other words we often use about ourselves,
alienation, disconnection, estrangement, separation....these words are quite
often used in a description about the 20/21 century and the people who
live within the 20/21th century...
you are "fracture and divided" the only difference between you
and IAM is the fact he understand that and he is working toward a solution....
whereas you are not.....he see's deeper then you do and you of course,
condemn him because you are afraid of looking too deep within yourself...
because you might not like what you find......
he is stronger and braver then you are.... and you know it....
so you lash out and attack him for it...with every attack on him,
you only expose your fear of seeking within yourself.... you are afraid
of seeing as deeply as IAM see's.....
seek that which is deep within you... overcome your fear......
become who you are....
Karpel Tunnel wrote:He has done this. A number of times. That was part of the funny thing about your other thread, where you said a bunch of things the kids never do. When in fact a number of the people you call kids have done those things.Peter Kropotkin wrote:if you oppose this, then offer us an alternative to this.....the problem as I see it, is that you don't offer us any alternative
Wait....in a thread about Iamb, where you compliment Iamb to the stars, you are critical of ZS for holding the same belief for years???????? That's funny.Peter Kropotkin wrote:You have held the exact same belief for years without any change....and yet,
your own personal situation and society situation has changed
hm, in the big boy world, other people get to point things like this out, also. I never assumed you needed me (and you can emphasize either 'needed' or 'me' and the sentence works for me) to tell you. In fact my main motivation is to point out that someone is judging people for being critical of Iamb and saying he is a great philospher, while not understand what his philosophy is, while making a statement that would get others mocked by Iamb, who is condescendingly lecturing us on the importance of his philososphy when he clearly misunderstands important facets of it. Nowhere was there a sense in me that you needed to be told. You seem content with what you believe.Peter Kropotkin wrote:K: if, if I am wrong about IAM, he is more then welcome to correct me about anything he
feels I am wrong about... he is a big boy as am I....
I don't need a kid to tell me what someone else is talking about... let the person
in question, in this case, IAM, tell me....
There are some other options here. Beliefs are often formed via experience. Of course this neither means the beliefs are correct, nor does it mean they are necessarily yours. In fact, you may not even be aware you have them until something pushes them to the surface: like a divorce or a car crash, and suddenly you realize you believe something and have for a while. Or don't believe something. There are other options also.the question I am fighting for, is the question of what is it that
I hold to be true? are my beliefs really my beliefs or do I simply
mimic the beliefs of the society or the state or my family or my religion?
Karpel Tunnel wrote:HERE'S THE FUCKING IRONY PETER. You keep defending and lauding Iamb
But you don't have a fucking clue what he is actually saying.
He'd mock me for months if I said some of the things you do. You don't read the kid's posts much. Which is fine. But then you act like you know what they have not done. You don't read Iamb's posts about his philosophy much or perhaps you don't read them well. Because you don't understand them.
So, what is an objectivist to me? An objectivist is someone who believes they are in sync with the real me [what some call the "soul"], in sync with the "right thing to do" in regard to moral and political and religious and esthetic value judgments.
Now, I am not inside Peter's head. I have no way of grasping for certain if, given my own set of assumptions, he reflects my own subjective parameters of objectivism.
But even if he does I would have no less respect for his intelligence. And for his commitment to come here day in and day out and actually pursue the sort of thinking that I myself associate with those who really do "love philosophy".
On the contrary, the mystery for me continues to be Karpel Tunnel/Moreno himself.
The part of him that continues to cling to his "visceral, intuitive, deep-down-inside-him" Self so as to keep the "fractured and fragmented" "I" at bay.
Only he doesn't have the intellectual integrity to pursue that with me in a serious exchange on the philosophy board. Instead, he hides behind the "foe" option to keep the points I raise out of his head altogether.
Again, ironically enough, the sort of reaction I usually get from the hardcore objectivists here.
And the Kids!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users